quote:I doubt that you have successfully constructed a systematic case demonstrating that they are both (A) harmful to people and the economy, and (B) "completely unnecessary and incompatible with property rights, capitalism, and the free market."

You don't have to "doubt" that... it's certain that he hasn't. Granted, that's tough to do within a Politalk thread, but his principal objection to patents and IP rights is that they're state-imposed. It's a case of throwing the baby out with the bath water... or cutting off one's nose to spite one's face. Most of us, thankfully, recognize the utility of government, so Mr. Kinsella's vision will never see the light of day. It's curious to me that he keeps screaming "competition" but actually holds the more anti-competition view; he loves it in the marketplace but not in the entire life cycle of a new product wherein the marketplace is merely the final of many stages.

quote:If you don't understand this I don't know what to tell you, but perhaps you can look up "ownership" in the dictionary or in Wikipedia or something.

I'm not disputing that "ownership" and "property" exists. I'm disputing the "rights" to ownership and property. From Wikipedia:

quote:There is considerable disagreement about what is meant precisely by the term rights.

quote:the precise definition of this principle, beyond having something to do with normative rules of some sort or another, is controversial.

quote:Ownership laws may vary widely among countries depending on the nature of the property of interest (e.g. firearms, real property, personal property, animals).

Seems like property and ownership "rights" has different meanings for different people. Like I've said in the past, it's a term that people use arbitrarily to make their arguments seem more coherent.

Marc Stevens:

quote:I am also moving in the direction of the conclusion that "rights" are mostly an empty concept which could be removed from our discussion without sacrificing any real content. Fundamentally, there is only a question of the moral legitimacy of actions. Unfortunately, rights have been embedded deeply in our language, from a time when a "right" was a sort of "exception to someone else's control over you." I would prefer a language in which the default assumption is individual liberty, but I don't know how big a deal it is.

Scrowe, your latest post is just filled with implausible assumptions. It's just not correct. Companies engage in R&D all the time even though it helps their competitors too. It's the only way to stay ahead of your competitors. And it's simply not so easy to just compete with others. For example the formula for Bayer aspirin has presumably been public domain and well known for a long time. Can you start a new aspirin company tomorrow and take all of Bayer's sales away? What about cola--? It's well known how to make a cola. Just make a new one and take away Pepsi or Coke's business. Why does Tylenol brand aceteminophin sell for twice as much as generic alternatives right next to them on the shelf? Reputuation, etc. All entrepreneurs realize that if they become successful then this profit they make sends a signal thru the market that attracts competitors, who emulate to some degree what they did, and thus over time their profit erodes--unless they find a way to keep innovating and pleasing the customer. You do realize profit is something that market equilibrium tendencies are always seeking to erode, right? The whining of people who want patents could be extended to any company facing competition. Why would I build a new drug store if a competitor can open a competing one across the street and "steal" "my" customers? Etc. Why would I make toothpaste when others can emulate me if they see me making a profit with a particular marketing technique (whitening toothpastes, etc.)?

ForeLSU:

quote:You may have covered this, but what is your view of 'point-of-sale' license agreements that specifically over a license to use, know ownership of a tangible product? ie. software, media, etc. In past discussions on topics like these, arguments like "I own that product, I should be able to do anything I want with it" are often made. The other argument often made is "I wouldn't actually buy the product but I'd use it if it was free, and since it is digital the producer didn't actually lose anything by my using the stolen copy".

My view of contracts is that contracts are just transfers of title to alienable property--not binding or enforceable promises. STill, it is possible for you to agree to pay a fine to a book or software seller, if you use the purchased book or software in impermissible ways--i.e., if you "learn from" it, or let other people see it, etc. So you agree to pay a million dollars to Amanda Hocking if you write a sequel to one of her novels, or if you let a friend see it without binding them to a similar commitment. But who would agree to this? If Amanda Hocking is selling you an ebook for $2.99 .... would you agree to be liable for millions of dollars...? I dont think so. You would just move on to another author. In any case, even if you did agree to this, it would not bind me, to whom you loan a copy of your book. Thus, there would a world of people who are not bound by this kind of contract, and the author would have recourse only against .... fans that actually purchased her work.

quote:" I seriously have never heard a good argument for IP"

are you talking legal or philosophical?

Well, legal arguments properly speaking are not normative, they are only analyses of existing law. So they are never really for or against a law. An argument in favor of a given law has to be normative, i.e. political-philosophical.

quote:Companies engage in R&D all the time even though it helps their competitors too. It's the only way to stay ahead of your competitors.

"All the time"? Really?????

I'm beginning to understand that you have no real understanding of "competition" and no clue as to how actual business decisions are made.

quote:Can you start a new aspirin company tomorrow and take all of Bayer's sales away?

Say what???? How is that relevant to a situation wherein aspirin has not yet been discovered and needs to be researched and developed? Congratulations to Bayer for overcoming its development disadvantages, building a reputation, and succeeding... but that's never a given and not always the case. If you had any a modicum of business smarts you'd understand that a great portion of business failures are because of undercapitalization.... and r&d requires capitalization.

quote:You do realize profit is something that market equilibrium tendencies are always seeking to erode, right?

Of course, but how is that an argument against patents since it would be true in either circumstance? You're only stating a preference... one that prefers rewarding leeching. Most people recognize that patents are fairer.

quote:My view of contracts is that contracts are just transfers of title to alienable property--not binding or enforceable promises.

And yet yesterday when I made that very prediction about the ramifications of your view you called it nonsensical. It would help your coherence to keep your stories straight.

You have yet to provide a single coherent argument or rebuttal to mine, or even to demonstrate that you understand what my argument is. You are really an amateur and out of your depth in this type of discussion. You are now resorting to ad hominem and reverse argument from authority, instead of simply providing a coherent and honest and sincere argument.

It is utterly irrelevant to the soundness of my argument whether I have sat in board meetings or not. but as a matter of fact, for the last 11 years I have been general counsel of a high tech company and of course have sat in and conducted scores of board meetings and run their entire patent strategy/portfolio. I am well aware of how patents work and affect companies. Small high tech startups like mine are forced to spend millions of dollars acquiring patents (we just got 3 more in the last few weeks -- see top 3 http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-adv.htm&r=0&p=1&f=S&l=50&Query=an%2Fapplied+and+an%2Foptoelectronics&d=PTXT). This is defensive and meant to keep competitors from suing; it's such a waste. And of course a patent lawsuit from a competitor or a troll is a huge danger lying in wait from comapnies that hope to go public; people strategically wait until an IPO is filed to launch a patent suit, to have maximum leverage extorting funds from the victim (see cases discussed here, including mostly recently Yahoo parastically attacking Facebook with patents) - http://c4sif.org/2012/03/using-patents-to-thwart-competitors-ipos/ . And people I know who actualy know something about all this are cynical like I am, including fellow patent attorneys.

"Stephan, Your letter responding to Joe Hosteny's comments on Patent Trolls nicely states what I came to realize several years ago, namely, it is unclear that the U.S. Patent System, as currently implemented, necessarily benefits society as a whole. Certainly, it has benefited [Hosteny] and his [partners] and several of their prominent clients, and has put Marshall, Texas on the map; but you really have to wonder if the "tax" placed on industry by the System … is really worth it."

Everyone knows this is a messy rigged system. But some people have a vested interest, and they use part of their monopoly profits to grease the palms of Congress so the system is perpetuated.

You are the naif who defends this horribly corrupt system and repeats stupid propaganda like an oaf.

I've already showed in this thread (when I was told to comb Wikipedia for definitions) that there is not an agreed upon definition of "rights." As Marc Stevens says, it's "mostly an empty concept." I don't know what else to say about it.

That's usually the case when what one is saying doesn't really make any logical sense.

You don't like humanity's current notion of "property rights", fine, I suppose (although, as I've said, I would bet I could point out actions you take every day that would serve to assert otherwise - but that's a different discussion). That doesn't equate to them not existing, though, no matter how many times you want to say it.

Fine. You people keep using the term "rights" like it has some kind of real meaning and I'll keep rolling my eyes every time I see someone try to use it in a debate. I really don't know how to prove a negative.